Corey v. Cadwell
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Montcalm. (Smith, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.
The parties to this suit were in partnership in 1886 in the business of buying, manufacturing, and selling shingles. In January, 1887, they dissolved this partnership, and the business was continued by the defendant. In July, 1887, the defendant told the plaintiff that he knew of a piece of pine in Newaygo county that could be bought at a bargain, and asked the plaintiff if the money could be had of him. Plaintiff said, “Yes, if the trade is a good one,” and advised'the defendant to go and examine the timber. Defendant did so, and on his return told plaintiff that it was a very nice tract of…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Holmes v. Kraus (In Re Kraus)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1984
- Pritchett v. Thomas Plater & Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1920
- Nicholson v. KilburyWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- Floyd v. KicklighterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Torbert v. JeffreySupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.